I guess I'm not old yet. In my 50's and still DD a manual Mazda 3.
Last DD was a manual Protege5.
I'm too young for automatics.
Last DD was a manual Protege5.
I'm too young for automatics.
I’m getting old...
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 93cruiser
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Nooooooo!
Maybe a quick PDK but no manual shift autos!
I have an auto in the Rogue, but its time to go back to the MT.
Near 5 MPG penalty for a slush Converter AT!
Wifes CV in the impreza is decent (as a passenger) but I would break it guaranteed.
It has a simulated 6 step shift CVT with paddles. IDK about nannies in pure M mode, I haven't driven it. I don't fit in that tiny car to well. The new global platform impreza is MUCH more commodious.
Im gonna look at one. dont like 150 HP though - -I think ….
Hard to decipher you post. One thing I did get out of it is you think an auto gets 5 mpg less than a manual? Maybe 25 years ago. Autos vs manuals when compared in the same car get better mpg now. Times have changed, autos are more efficient than ever.
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Nooooooo!
Maybe a quick PDK but no manual shift autos!
I have an auto in the Rogue, but its time to go back to the MT.
Near 5 MPG penalty for a slush Converter AT!
Wifes CV in the impreza is decent (as a passenger) but I would break it guaranteed.
It has a simulated 6 step shift CVT with paddles. IDK about nannies in pure M mode, I haven't driven it. I don't fit in that tiny car to well. The new global platform impreza is MUCH more commodious.
Im gonna look at one. dont like 150 HP though - -I think ….
Hard to decipher you post. One thing I did get out of it is you think an auto gets 5 mpg less than a manual? Maybe 25 years ago. Autos vs manuals when compared in the same car get better mpg now. Times have changed, autos are more efficient than ever.
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
Originally Posted By: 93cruiser
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Nooooooo!
Maybe a quick PDK but no manual shift autos!
I have an auto in the Rogue, but its time to go back to the MT.
Near 5 MPG penalty for a slush Converter AT!
Wifes CV in the impreza is decent (as a passenger) but I would break it guaranteed.
It has a simulated 6 step shift CVT with paddles. IDK about nannies in pure M mode, I haven't driven it. I don't fit in that tiny car to well. The new global platform impreza is MUCH more commodious.
Im gonna look at one. dont like 150 HP though - -I think ….
Hard to decipher you post. One thing I did get out of it is you think an auto gets 5 mpg less than a manual? Maybe 25 years ago. Autos vs manuals when compared in the same car get better mpg now. Times have changed, autos are more efficient than ever.
Wife's old Forester got 32 MPG stick, while auto in rogue gets 24 with same engine weight and AWD configuration. Nissan CVT are NOT efficient.
I say you're wrong - I don't find push belt CVT efficient at all.
Plus, how can you campare sticks to autos when sticks are almost ALL Gone?!
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Nooooooo!
Maybe a quick PDK but no manual shift autos!
I have an auto in the Rogue, but its time to go back to the MT.
Near 5 MPG penalty for a slush Converter AT!
Wifes CV in the impreza is decent (as a passenger) but I would break it guaranteed.
It has a simulated 6 step shift CVT with paddles. IDK about nannies in pure M mode, I haven't driven it. I don't fit in that tiny car to well. The new global platform impreza is MUCH more commodious.
Im gonna look at one. dont like 150 HP though - -I think ….
Hard to decipher you post. One thing I did get out of it is you think an auto gets 5 mpg less than a manual? Maybe 25 years ago. Autos vs manuals when compared in the same car get better mpg now. Times have changed, autos are more efficient than ever.
Wife's old Forester got 32 MPG stick, while auto in rogue gets 24 with same engine weight and AWD configuration. Nissan CVT are NOT efficient.
I say you're wrong - I don't find push belt CVT efficient at all.
Plus, how can you campare sticks to autos when sticks are almost ALL Gone?!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
There is a lot more to MPG than just weight and engine size.
The only way to tell if your Rogue would get better MPG with manual trans would be to get a Rogue with a manual trans and compare it to CVT versioin. Comparing it to a Forester is pointless.
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
There is a lot more to MPG than just weight and engine size.
The only way to tell if your Rogue would get better MPG with manual trans would be to get a Rogue with a manual trans and compare it to CVT versioin. Comparing it to a Forester is pointless.
I'll pass on manual trannies. It was one thing with three forward gears (usually on the column) or four forward gears. But the five and six gear (and even more sometimes!) trannies have gone too far. Too much work unless traffic is light and the stop signs or traffic lights are far and few between.
Automatic trannies used to be considered an upgrade, I still view them in that light.
Automatic trannies used to be considered an upgrade, I still view them in that light.
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
You are seriously going to compare two completely different vehicles and use that as your proof? That's nonsense. Automatic transmissions do not impose a 5 MPG penalty if you compare the exact same vehicle. It doesn't matter if the vehicles are the same weight and engine size, there are so many other factors that contribute to MPG. Some engine designs are more efficient, and what about the gear ratios in each?
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
You are seriously going to compare two completely different vehicles and use that as your proof? That's nonsense. Automatic transmissions do not impose a 5 MPG penalty if you compare the exact same vehicle. It doesn't matter if the vehicles are the same weight and engine size, there are so many other factors that contribute to MPG. Some engine designs are more efficient, and what about the gear ratios in each?
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
You are seriously going to compare two completely different vehicles and use that as your proof? That's nonsense. Automatic transmissions do not impose a 5 MPG penalty if you compare the exact same vehicle. It doesn't matter if the vehicles are the same weight and engine size, there are so many other factors that contribute to MPG. Some engine designs are more efficient, and what about the gear ratios in each?
They aren't THAT different.
CUV
Same engine size, same weight, same drive.
I could compare SUBARU to Subaru but like I said their pull belt is way better than JATCO push belt.
Like I said there are no MT around anymore.
I will say Subaru CVT is lightyears ahead of JATCO garbage.
But CVT still have belt, pully and windage losses which are not MINOR.
If I had a 5M in my Rogue I guarantee I would get 27-28 MPG
23-24 is TERRIBLE for a small light 4 cylinder CUV. But I blame Nissan on t hat one.
Look at CU tested fuel mileage not GOVT ratings.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
That's why my rogue auto CVT gets 23- 24 mpg and the wife's Subaru Forester stick got 32 mpg ( same weight and engine size).
Depends on the car and the trans.
You are seriously going to compare two completely different vehicles and use that as your proof? That's nonsense. Automatic transmissions do not impose a 5 MPG penalty if you compare the exact same vehicle. It doesn't matter if the vehicles are the same weight and engine size, there are so many other factors that contribute to MPG. Some engine designs are more efficient, and what about the gear ratios in each?
They aren't THAT different.
CUV
Same engine size, same weight, same drive.
I could compare SUBARU to Subaru but like I said their pull belt is way better than JATCO push belt.
Like I said there are no MT around anymore.
I will say Subaru CVT is lightyears ahead of JATCO garbage.
But CVT still have belt, pully and windage losses which are not MINOR.
If I had a 5M in my Rogue I guarantee I would get 27-28 MPG
23-24 is TERRIBLE for a small light 4 cylinder CUV. But I blame Nissan on t hat one.
Look at CU tested fuel mileage not GOVT ratings.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
23-24 is TERRIBLE for a small light 4 cylinder CUV. But I blame Nissan on t hat one.
The EPA figures are on par with other vehicles in this segment, such as Honda CRV or Toyota RAV4, so I'm not sure why you are singling out Nissan. Are you saying the Rogue is much worse than these other competitors in real life?
23-24 is TERRIBLE for a small light 4 cylinder CUV. But I blame Nissan on t hat one.
The EPA figures are on par with other vehicles in this segment, such as Honda CRV or Toyota RAV4, so I'm not sure why you are singling out Nissan. Are you saying the Rogue is much worse than these other competitors in real life?
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
They aren't THAT different.
Yes, they are THAT different. Two completely different vehicles from two completely different manufacturers. It's foolish to compare them and say the automatic transmission is worth a 5 MPG penalty, because it absolutely isn't. You need to get your head out of the sand.
You want more proof, look at the EPA numbers of a bunch of car makers comparing their MT version to the AT version. It won't be 5 MPG difference.
They aren't THAT different.
Yes, they are THAT different. Two completely different vehicles from two completely different manufacturers. It's foolish to compare them and say the automatic transmission is worth a 5 MPG penalty, because it absolutely isn't. You need to get your head out of the sand.
You want more proof, look at the EPA numbers of a bunch of car makers comparing their MT version to the AT version. It won't be 5 MPG difference.
For me, choosing a manual or an automatic has nothing to do with my age...it has to do with my driving conditions and/or type of vehicle. Since I drive in A LOT of stop and go traffic, my DD has an auto. When I get my Corvette it will be a manual...then again, it won't be my DD, nor will I be driving it in a lot of stop and go traffic either. Plus, I won't own a sports car with an automatic...
Last edited:
I don’t find driving a manual laborious at all, even in heavy traffic. With light hydraulic clutches, slower creep speeds, and the ability to nudge and neutral coast I would argue it's less effort. The key is gapping correctly. The only time it’s a pain is bumper to bumper on a steep grade but that’s a rarity. I’m sure Europe has their fair share of heavy traffic but they don’t seem to mind.
One thing a slush box, sans manual mode, can’t do is see. With a manual I can get into the right gear ahead of time and have instant response if needed. No amount of mechanical or electronic wizardry can beat that. Sure, the latest autos may win a red light race - if you’re into that kind of thing - but for me, response and increased driver engagement still trumps.
One thing a slush box, sans manual mode, can’t do is see. With a manual I can get into the right gear ahead of time and have instant response if needed. No amount of mechanical or electronic wizardry can beat that. Sure, the latest autos may win a red light race - if you’re into that kind of thing - but for me, response and increased driver engagement still trumps.
I like having an automatic for my Acura with the V-TEC 6 cylinder & my 2000 Dodge Ram with the 5.2L. Now im glad the Subaru has a manual with the 4 cylinder. My GF loves her automatic VW so when shes happy -- im happy.
My two daily drivers are manuals and this is in the Bay Area no less. Also approaching Medicare age and I love my sticks in my dailies. A manual in Bay Area traffic takes skill in spacing to minimize how often you shift gears. I have dealt with it since my first manual in 1980 and I do have the skill to shift very little.
At 40, I own 5 cars, 2 are manuals, 3 are automatics.
I used to swear by manuals, but I don't spit on automatics like I used to. Automatics came a long way.
I'd take a great automatic over a poor manual.
Our van (Toyota Sienna) has a 5 speed automatic that shifts smoothly and overall works great. I once drove a 2002 Nissan Sentra with a 5 speed manual and it worked so bad I would have picked an automatic instead. The car wasn't even that old back then, maybe 2 or 3 years old.
Meanwhile, my daily driver is still a 5 speed manual that sees very little traffic, mostly highway driving. I still enjoy it. There will come a day where I'll have to quit daily driving with a stick shift, but I'll always keep an old stick shifted car for weekend cruising.
I used to swear by manuals, but I don't spit on automatics like I used to. Automatics came a long way.
I'd take a great automatic over a poor manual.
Our van (Toyota Sienna) has a 5 speed automatic that shifts smoothly and overall works great. I once drove a 2002 Nissan Sentra with a 5 speed manual and it worked so bad I would have picked an automatic instead. The car wasn't even that old back then, maybe 2 or 3 years old.
Meanwhile, my daily driver is still a 5 speed manual that sees very little traffic, mostly highway driving. I still enjoy it. There will come a day where I'll have to quit daily driving with a stick shift, but I'll always keep an old stick shifted car for weekend cruising.
- Status
